1987 PLP r (PCRLJ)
MUSTAFA alias BHOLA — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP r (PCRLJ) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rustam S. Sidhwa and Riaz Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | MUSTAFA alias BHOLA — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP r (PCRLJ)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP r (PCRLJ)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rustam S. Sidhwa and Riaz Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP r (PCRLJ) (MUSTAFA alias BHOLA — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Aftab Rasul Mahar for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 11th October, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13--Benefit of doubt--Unlicensed pistol recovered from accused- Evidence contradictory as to place of recovery--Not much reliance, held, could be placed on evidence of witnesses and accused thus was entitled to benefit of doubt--Accused acquitted in circumstances. Pervaiz Alamgir for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Aftab Rasul Mahar for Appellant. Pervaiz Alamgir for the State. Date of hearing: 11th October, 1986. RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.--This is an appeal filed by Mustafa alias Bhola, appellant, against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Kasur, dated 25-6-1984, convicting him under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 17-12-1982, Mustafa alias Bhola, appellant, during the investigation of a murder case, got recovered an unlicensed pistol P.1 from a sugarcane field in the area of Jaggowal, which was taken into possession vide memo. P.A. in the presence of Siraj Din P.W.1, Saghir Ahmad S.I. P.W.2 and Ghulam Muhammad (given up P.W.).
3. The appellant denied the recovery, but led no evidence in his defence.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the State and have also perused the record. The recovery appears to have been witnessed by Siraj Din P.W.1, Saghir Ahmad S.I. P.W.2 and Ghulam Muhammad (given up P.W.). According to Siraj Din P.W.1, Mustafa, appellant got recovered the unlicensed pistol P.1 from the sugarcane field near the tube-well of Karamat accused in the revenue estate of Sodiwal. According to Saghir Ahmad S.I. P.W.2 the pistol was recovered from the sugarcane field in the area of Mauza Jaggowala, which was at a distance of fifty yards from the Dera of Khushi Muhammad, accused. According to Siraj Din P.W.1, he joined the police at about 10 a.m. from village Sodiwal. According to Saghir Ahmad S.I. P.W.2, the recovery had to be made from the area of Mauza Jaggowal and the recovery witnesses were called at the Dera of the Chairman of the Union Council of that Ilaqa, which obviously was Jaggowal. Siraj Din P.W.1 admits that he, Jalal Din, deceased, and Ghulam Muhammad (given up P.W.) are Dogars by caste. The evidence is contradictory as to whether the recovery was made from the revenue estate of Sodiwal or the revenue estate of Jaggowal. In these circumstances not much reliance can be placed on the evidence of the witnesses. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence of Mustafa, appellant is set aside. Mustafa, appellant, is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged. S. A. Appeal accepted.